25052010

Architects held to be "Fit For Purpose"

By Eco Guy 12:52am 25th May 2010
Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010 will seek to remove an exception requiring Architects and Engineers to comply to a 'Fit for Purpose' warranty. We think this is a good thing.

Passive Solar is simply using the Sun to provide heat into your house when you need it most and keeping it out when you don't; i.e. in during the Winter months, out during Summer.

Now on the face of it that sounds like a simple thing to achieve, but there are certain key things you need to get right to make this work well for you.

First off the property needs to have a good level of general insulation (or R-value rating) all round. No point trying to keep warm (or cool in Summer) if heat is able to freely transition in or out of the building when it likes and not when you want it to.

Secondly the property needs to be designed to be aligned along the solar East-West line with the most glass being on the side towards the Sun (South side if in the Northern hemisphere, North side if in the Southern hemisphere). This maximizes the solar collection possible.

Thirdly, you need some reliable way to exclude the Sun during the Summer months; this is best achieved with the right depth of eaves over the windows.



If you want to know more look at the following:

Related Content Tags: green building, architects


Follow us on Facebook, click here!
Comment

Comments left

  • Drhans said:

    Bravo, Something like this needs to be said. As Australia's principal stone specialist/stone scientist I frequently encounter problems with stone materials - from the quarry to the final application on a project. Numerous types of problems arise and many are due to the slackness and ignorance of the architect and some engineers. It is now rare for architects to do the necessary research on this type of building product, the adhesives that are used to fix the stone and the type of maintenance that is required after the completion of the job. These days the architect tends to rely on the words of a supplier for these products but fails to realize that the supplier just wants to supply - and take you money. What does a supplier of stone really know about their product - the composition of the product and its likely performance in service in a plethora of potential applications? You might be surprised that very few know much about stone (I can support this with endless examples); it is just another commodity that can be used in construction. What does a supplier know about the application to which that stone is to be used, for example, the strength requirements for certain applications, the durability of that product, and its fitness for certain purposes. He doesn't and yet the architect will rely on that information blindly. He rarely engages an experienced consultant for the advice. He tends to hide behind the fact that stone is a natural product with inherent variations and therefore cannot be held responsible for its behaviour or performance. I have never come across an instance where an architect has been held responsible for stone that he has specified for the project. It goes further. The literature is now swamped by assertions from companies and writers that it is necessary, indeed essential, to seal every stone product irrespective of its composition and application. This is total nonsense and the architect is one of the chief perpetrators of this scam. He relies on the marketing talk of salesmen to make his selection and recommendation about which sealer the builder or tiler must use. He does not engage in any due diligence or research into fitness for purpose of that product. As far he is concerned "stone is stone" with no real difference between the different varieties. Again in my long experience, the architect or the sealer supplier is never held responsible for the poor performance or a failure of the natural material even if they are directly responsible for its failure due to their ignorance and negligence.

    ON Thu, 10 Nov 11, 8:45am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • Andrew Guthrie said:

    Does this mean that Architects and Building Services Consultants are exempt from being held accountable for 'Not Fit For Purpose' designs up to when this Bill was introduced? Did the Bill remove the exemption?

    ON Fri, 3 Aug 12, 6:02am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

Add Coment

Got a question or comment about this?

Find what you were looking for?.. Not quite what you expected?.. Got a question to ask people?
Share your thoughts and use the form below to post a public comment right on this page.


Simple HTML is supported i.e <b> <i> etc. Excessive inline URL's, spam, ANY ads or swearing is blocked/removed quickly. youtube URL's get embedded.

Posting Terms & Conditions